Grizzly Bear Inventory Project in Bear Management Area 5

Grizzly Bear Inventory Project in Bear Management Area 5

Mike Verhage Alberta Conservation Association

#400, 817 – 4th Ave. South Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

T1J 0P3

i

Report Editors

DOUG MANZER GLENDA SAMUELSON Alberta Conservation Association R.R. #2 Box 1139, Provincial Building Craven, SK S0G 0W0 Blairmore, AB T0K 0E0 Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN: 978-1-989448-00-7 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Verhage, M. 2019. Grizzly bear inventory project in Bear Management Area 5. Data Report,

produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp. Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association 101 – 9 Chippewa Rd. Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091 Tel: (780) 410-1998 Fax: (780) 464-0990 Email: info@ab-conservation.com Website: www.ab-conservation.com

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Grizzly bears are an iconic symbol of wilderness and historically an important part of Alberta’s

hunting heritage. In 2010, Alberta grizzly bears were designated as Threatened under the

provincial Wildlife Act, and in 2012, the western population was federally designated as a

species of Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC). Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) has indicated that completing a population

inventory to estimate the density and abundance of grizzly bears within Bear Management

Area 5 (BMA 5) is a priority. The last grizzly bear population estimate for this area was

completed in 2006 as part of a larger population study that occurred throughout Alberta from

2004 through 2008. In partnership with AEP, we searched public (2014) and private lands (2015)

within the southern portion of BMA 5 (BMA 5 South) to locate bear rub objects. In total, we

identified 922 rub objects, and in the summer of 2016 we visited each of the rub objects four

times. The first visit was to initially burn off all existing hair on the rub object, and then return

at 3 week intervals to collect bear hair for DNA analysis. We collected 1,289 hair samples with

47% of the samples from the first interval, while 29% and 24% were taken from the second and

third intervals respectively. Of the 922 rub objects identified, bear hair was found at 41% of

these locations in the 2016 collection period. Results of DNA analysis of hair samples detected

38 individual grizzly bears in BMA 5 South: 17 females and 21 males. Results from this survey

in BMA 5 South are currently being used in combination with data from the northern portion of

the BMA to estimate grizzly bear density and abundance across BMA 5 using a spatially explicit

capture mark-recapture framework. The BMA 5 grizzly bear population estimate will be

published by AEP and released to the public in 2019.

Key words: Alberta, density estimate, DNA, grizzly bear, hair sample, non-invasive monitoring, population inventory, rub object, Ursus arctos.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Members of the Bear Management Area 5 (South) Working Group include Jenny Burgess, Paul

Frame, Greg Hale, Jay Honeyman, Doug Manzer, Hannah McKenzie, Andrea Morehouse, Kim

Morton, John Paczkowski, Mike Ranger and Mike Verhage.

Thank you to the following Alberta Conservation Association staff Robert Anderson, Jennifer

Baker, Aiden Bateman, Lindsey Dewart, Brad Downey, Jeff Forsyth, John Hallett, Chelsea

Jensen, Tyler Johns, Mike Jokinen, Paul Jones, Britt Keeling, Kris Kendell, Jessika Klassen,

Amanda MacDonald, Doug Manzer, Greg Melvin, Kelly Mulligan, Colton Newton, Sue Peters,

Kyle Prince, Mike Ranger, Corey Rasmussen, Logan Redman, Amanda Rezansoff, Evan Rothlin,

Blair Seward, Layne Seward, Adam Scharnau, Robb Stavne, Dan Sturgess, Mike Verhage and

Ken Wright for identifying bear rubs and collecting bear hair samples.

Funding and in-kind project support was provided by Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta

Innovates – Technology Futures, Alberta Parks, Bear Scare Limited, Benga Mining Limited o/a

Riversdale Resources Limited, Cycleworks Motorsports, Landowners in southwestern Alberta,

Municipal District of Ranchlands, Parks Canada, Safari Club International – Northern Alberta

Chapter, Spray Lake Sawmills and the Waterton Biosphere Reserve Association.

The Grizzly Bear Inventory Project in Bear Management Area 5 is a collaborative effort between

ACA and AEP.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................................... 33.1 Identifying rub objects on public land in 2014 (Recovery Zone) ........................................... 43.2 Identifying rub objects on private land in 2015 (Support Zone) ........................................... 73.3 Hair collection on public and private land in 2016 (Recovery Zone and Support Zone) .. 9

4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 9

5.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 11

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................... 14

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The red border indicates the boundary of Bear Management Area 5 in southwest Alberta, with the cross hatching depicting BMA 5 South. The inset map shows the location within the province of Alberta. ............................................................................ 3

Figure 2. Location of survey routes for bear rub objects in the Recovery Zone in the southern portion of Bear Management Area 5 in 2014. The inset map shows the location within BMA 5. ........................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 3. Survey priority for bear rub objects in the Support Zone in the southern portion of Bear Management Area 5 in 2015. ....................................................................................... 8

Figure 4. Number of bear hair samples collected per sampling interval in the southern portion of Bear Management Area 5 in 2016. ................................................................................ 11

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) are an iconic symbol of Alberta’s wilderness and historically an

important part of Alberta’s hunting heritage. In 2002, Alberta’s Endangered Species

Conservation Committee (ESCC) recommended that the provincial grizzly bear population be

designated as Threatened under the provincial Wildlife Act due to its small population size, low

reproductive rate, limited immigration from outside populations, and increased human activity

on the landscape (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and Alberta

Conservation Association (ACA) 2010, ASRD 2008). In 2012, the western population of grizzly

bears were federally designated as a species of Special Concern by the Committee on the Status

of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2012).

A provincial Grizzly Bear Recovery Team was tasked with providing recommendations

including strategies and actions for the recovery of grizzly bears within Alberta (ASRD 2008).

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) indicated that completing a population inventory to

estimate the density and abundance of grizzly bears within Bear Management Area 5 (BMA 5)

is a priority. The grizzly bear population in BMA 5 was previously surveyed in 2006 using coral

lure sites as part of a larger population study that occurred throughout Alberta from 2004

through 2008 (Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team 2007). The population estimate for BMA 5 at that time was 89.9 (95% CI 75–116) grizzly bears or a density of 11.8 (CI 9.9-15.2) bears per 1,000 square kilometers (Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team 2007).

We were asked by AEP to collect hair samples from bear rub objects in the southern portion of

BMA 5 (BMA 5 South) that would then be used as part of a larger DNA study to update

estimates for grizzly bear density and abundance across the entire BMA 5. Our objectives for the

survey in BMA 5 South were to 1) locate naturally existing bear rub objects in 2014 and 2015,

and 2) visit each of these rub objects four times in 2016 to initially burn off existing hair, and

then return at 3 week intervals to collect bear hair that would contribute to the DNA analysis of

the grizzly bear population in BMA 5.

2.0 STUDY AREA

Bear Management Areas serve as administrative boundaries for the management of both grizzly

and black bear (Ursus americanus) populations in Alberta. For this grizzly bear population

inventory in BMA 5 (also known as the Livingston Population Unit) the BMA was divided into

2

two geographic sampling units: north and south. ACA involvement was to contribute to the

population inventory in BMA 5 South.

BMA 5 South is approximately 2,860 km2 and is bounded by Highway 3 in the Crowsnest Pass

(49.5909° N, 114.5238° W), the Alberta-British Columbia provincial border to the west, the

southern extent of Kananaskis country to the north, and Highway 22 to the east, including the

Porcupine Hills (Figure 1). Within BMA 5 South, the Recovery Zone (which is primarily Crown

Land) is the area where the provincial government plans to recover grizzly bears, while the

Support Zone (which is primarily deeded and leased land) recognizes individuals whose home

ranges are not entirely centered within the Recovery Zone (AEP 2017a).

Just under half of BMA 5 South falls within the subalpine natural subregion which is

characterized by open stands of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies

lasiocarpa), and subalpine larch (Larix lyallii) which generally occur at higher elevations, and

young, closed stands of fire-successional lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) residing at lower

elevations (Natural Regions Committee 2006). An additional 44% of BMA 5 South falls within

the montane natural subregion which is characterized by coniferous stands of lodgepole pine

and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and closed mixedwood stands including trembling

aspen (Populus tremuloides). Both types of stands are found at higher elevations on northeast

slopes with grasslands generally occurring on southwest slopes at lower elevations (Natural

Regions Committee 2006).

BMA 5 South includes several Alberta parks and protected areas including the Bob Creek

Wildland, the Beehive Natural Area, and Chain Lakes Provincial Park along Highway 22. Land

use within the Recovery Zone includes cattle grazing allotments, forestry, oil and gas as well as

intensive recreational use. Livestock and agricultural production are the primary uses in the

Support Zone.

3

Figure 1. The red border indicates the boundary of Bear Management Area 5 in southwest

Alberta, with the cross hatching depicting BMA 5 South. The inset map shows the location within the province of Alberta.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collaborated with AEP and other project partners to complete a population inventory to

update the estimates of grizzly bear density and abundance in BMA 5 South, as well as to

provide information on bear density and abundance within southwestern Alberta. We

accomplished this task by collecting hair samples from naturally existing bear rub objects and

4

stretches of existing barbed wire fence. Different from the previous estimates in 2006 (ASRD

and ACA 2010) we did not use lures or attractants to motivate bears to visit our sites. DNA was

extracted from hair samples and used to identify the species (grizzly vs black bear), sex, and

provide unique signatures of individual bears. These results will be combined with data from

surveys in the northern portion of the BMA to estimate density and abundance across the entire

BMA 5.

Given the size of the study area and the challenge of navigating through difficult, mountainous

terrain, a staged approach over three years was used to first identify bear rub objects (2014 and

2015) and then second to collect hair samples from the rub objects over one summer (2016).

3.1 Identifying rub objects on public land in 2014 (Recovery Zone)

In the summer of 2014, we searched public land in the Recovery Zone of BMA 5 South, an area

more than 1600 km2, for naturally occurring bear rub objects along existing roads, trails, and cut

lines. We used the existing network of linear pathways for this search effort and did not expend

effort searching elsewhere. As such a limitation of using this approach is that we constricted our

search and may have missed bear rub objects located in other areas of the study site. A second

possible limitation of the approach, in detecting individuals within a population, is simply that

some bears may not use rub objects at all (Morehouse and Boyce 2016).

Prior to field surveying for rub objects within the Recovery Zone, a mapping exercise was

completed to identify potential survey routes using the most current Geographic Information

System (GIS) layers available. Linear features (e.g., roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails, cut

lines, and power lines) were combined into one layer and divided into 65 independent survey

routes of varying length based on location, distance travelled, travel type (i.e. truck, ATV, foot),

and elevation gain (Figure 2). Survey routes were also spatially distributed among a grid of 54,

10 km2 cells with consideration given to topography (i.e. drainages, ridgetops, mountainous

terrain, valley confinements, etc.).

Once field survey routes were finalized, field crews hiked and travelled by truck and ATV to

locate trees and other structures that had been used as rub objects by bears. The primary

characteristics that were used to visually identify rub trees in the field included a smooth,

discolored rub surface relative to the remaining tree bark, claw scars, bite marks, and the

presence of bear hair (Stetz et al. 2010). Occasionally, a bear trail leading up to and away from

5

the rub object was also present. We also documented other signs that indicated bears had used

or were near the site such as scat and/or tracks.

Once bear rub objects were confirmed, we added hair-snagging wire and documented the

characteristics of the site. We attached 4 to 8 strands of double-stranded barbed wire with

fencing staples to the tree with each strand approximately 40 cm long. These short wire strands

had 4 barbs and were typically attached in a zig-zag pattern to increase the likelihood of hair

collection. The lowest strand was commonly 47 cm from the ground and the upper most height

normally 166 cm. A pre-numbered aluminum tag (used as a unique site identifier) and two

reflective (visual) tree markers were attached to each site using straight nails. At each site,

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were taken using a handheld Geographic

Positioning System (GPS) unit, ecological information of the surrounding area was recorded,

and site characteristics were collected including rub type (i.e. tree, fence post), tree species, rub

surface size and condition, and the presence or absence of hair. All associated site data collected

in the field was entered into a database.

The existing trail network on public land was sufficient for surveying in 2014, as it enabled us to

identify rub objects distributed fairly evenly throughout the Recovery Zone and it also provided

increased access into remote areas. Field surveys were completed between June 9th and October

8th, 2014.

6

Figure 2. Location of survey routes for bear rub objects in the Recovery Zone in the southern portion of Bear Management Area 5 in 2014. The inset map shows the location within BMA 5.

7

3.2 Identifying rub objects on private land in 2015 (Support Zone)

In the summer of 2015, we modified our approach to identify bear rub objects on private land in

the Support Zone of BMA 5 South. This region is just east of the Recovery Zone and is more than 1,200 km2. In the absence of a defined trail network, we created a survey priority area map

to: 1) identify areas of high quality grizzly bear habitat where it seemed more likely to find rub

objects, and 2) identify specific landowners to approach for participation in the inventory

project. In the absence of a defined trail network on private land it was necessary to prioritize

areas to survey in 2015 to maximize efficiency and to direct us towards areas with a higher

probability of locating rub objects.

We combined three approaches to help prioritize survey efforts within the Support Zone: 1)

existing truck, ATV, and walking trails, 2) riparian areas, and 3) an existing Resource Selection

Function (RSF) model (Northrup et al. 2012) that represented the best-known habitat for grizzly

bears in this area at that time. Grizzly bears are known to use trails (Ladle et al. 2018) and

riparian areas to access food sources (Graham et al. 2010) and we suspected that these areas,

combined with the habitat RSF model, would help us to concentrate our effort while searching

for rub objects. All GIS layers were rasterized, reclassified, weighted, summed, and intersected

with the Alberta Township System (ATS) to identify quarter sections with high survey priority

(Figure 3).

Once high priority areas were defined, we contacted landowners in the spring of 2015 and

outlined the objectives of the survey and requested their insight on historic and recent bear

activity. During these meetings, we discussed and mapped known locations of rub objects (if

any), recent and historic sightings of bears, and areas of suitable habitat. We then requested

access to their land for the survey and outlined the anticipated survey dates. Being a multi-year

study, we provided periodic updates to participating landowners as well as the surrounding

ranching community through the Municipal District of Ranchland No. 66 newsletter.

Once landowner permissions were granted, we continued our initiative by intensively

searching for bear rub objects on private land as well as surveying grazing allotments on public

land in the southern Porcupine Hills. All identified bear rub objects and associated site data

collected in the field was entered into a database. Field surveys were completed between June

8th and October 16th 2015.

8

Figure 3. Survey priority for bear rub objects in the Support Zone in the southern portion of

Bear Management Area 5 in 2015.

9

3.3 Hair collection on public and private land in 2016 (Recovery Zone and Support Zone)

Prior to the bear hair collection survey in 2016, we modified our survey routes used to locate

rub objects in 2014 (Recovery Zone) and 2015 (Support Zone). We merged the 65 routes

surveyed in 2014 with GPS track logs (indicative of the areas we surveyed) that we surveyed in

2015. Once combined, we deleted segments of trail where we did not find rub objects and

created 60 hair collection routes across both the Recovery and Support zones. The pathway of

these routes allowed us to undertake repeat visits to rub objects at set intervals (see below) and

were optimized for efficiency based on length of route, elevation gain, access points, distance to

trail head, mode of travel (i.e. on foot, truck or ATV), and proximity to field camps.

We deployed five field crews of two people each to visit rub objects four times using the 60 hair

collection routes. During the first visit (mid-June) we removed or burned off all existing hair

from each rub object using a propane torch. This was done to establish the beginning of a

discrete sampling period; the quality of DNA in hair samples degrades over time and when

exposed to prolonged sunlight and/or moisture (Kendall and McKelvey 2008). Following the

hair removal visit, we revisited each rub object an additional three times (roughly in July,

August, and early September) to collect bear hair samples at a set interval of every three weeks.

Bear hair samples were only collected from the barbs themselves or the ends of the barbed-wire

strands to ensure that all hair samples were collected within an isolated time period. All

residual hair fibers from non-target species were removed or burned from wires at each repeat

visit. Additionally, hair samples from different barbs were not combined; each barb or wire end

was considered a discrete sample. All bear hair samples were inserted into labelled, paper coin

envelopes and were stored at room temperature in plastic Ziploc bags with silica gel

dehumidifiers. Bear hair was collected from all identified rub objects, even those within

proximity to each other (i.e. three trees within ten meters of each other). At the end of each

three-week sampling interval, bear hair samples were sent to Wildlife Genetics International

(WGI) in Nelson, British Columbia for genetic analysis. Through the extraction of nuclear DNA

from the hair follicle, the species, the sex, and the individual identity of the bear was identified

(Morehouse and Boyce 2016).

4.0 RESULTS In 2015, survey areas were prioritized on private land and within the grazing allotments in the

Porcupine Hills to assist field crews when navigating areas with no defined trails. As a tool, the

10

survey priority map provided a general sense for where field crews would be able to find trails,

riparian areas, and bear habitat and thus a greater probability of finding bear rub objects. The

survey priority model was validated at the end of the field season by overlaying known rub

objects and calculating the proportion of rubs per priority class. Results indicated that

approximately 25% (n=113) of rub objects were located within the High survey priority class,

65% (n=298) within the Moderate High class, 10% (n=49) within the Moderate class and no rub

objects were located within the Low priority class.

In 2016, the length of hair collection survey routes ranged from 300 m to 35 km, where the

average Euclidean (straight-line) distance was approximately 14 km. In some cases, field crews

surveyed two shorter survey routes in the same day, provided they were close to each other. An

average of 21 hair samples were collected per survey route.

We completed 3,688 visits (four visits x 922 rub objects) to rub objects within a 12-week period

(June 20th to September 8th) in 2016. The number of rub objects were almost equally split

between the Recovery Zone (n = 462; 50.11%) and the Support Zone (n = 460; 49.89%). We

collected 1,289 bear hair samples over the three hair collection sampling intervals. Of the 1,289

hair samples collected, 1,226 were from known rub objects while 63 were collected

opportunistically. It took roughly ten minutes to collect hair samples from each site, if that site

had been rubbed since the previous visit (range 5–20 minutes).

We found and collected bear hair at 374 of (41%) the 922 rub objects on at least one occasion. Of

these, 242 (65%) were in the Support Zone and 132 (35%) were in the Recovery Zone.

Approximately 47% of hair samples (n=575) were collected from rub objects in the first interval,

29% (n=352) in the second interval, and 24% (n=299) in the third interval (Figure 4).

Results of DNA analysis of hair samples detected 38 individual grizzly bears in BMA 5 South:

17 females and 21 males (AEP 2017b). These data represent the number of individual bears

detected through this hair collection survey but do not represent a resident population estimate.

An updated grizzly bear density and abundance estimate is being led by AEP and will

amalgamate data throughout BMA 5 using a spatial capture mark-recapture approach

(unpublished report prepared for Alberta Environment and Parks by Andrea Morehouse,

Winisk Research and Consulting).

11

Figure 4. Number of bear hair samples collected per sampling interval in the southern portion of Bear Management Area 5 in 2016.

5.0 SUMMARY Rubbing is thought to be a natural behavior and method of communication for bears (Green

and Mattson 2003). Several research projects across both Canada and the United States have

successfully used rub objects to collect hair samples from bears (Kendall et al. 2008, Kendall et

al. 2009). Generating population information by use of rub objects implies several assumptions

that are inherent in the approach. For example, there is some concern that female bears may rub

less than males in late spring and early summer (Boulanger et al. 2008, Kendall et al. 2008,

Kendall et al. 2009, Stetz et al. 2014), however this issue can be somewhat mitigated by

extending sampling beyond the breeding season into late summer and early fall; a time where

females are more likely to use rub trees (Kendall et al. 2009). Our hair collection sampling began

on June 20th and continued through until September 8th. Another assumption is that all bears

rub, and thus can be detected. Moreover, the detection of individuals is directly correlated with

the ability to locate a high volume of rubs that are spatially distributed throughout the study

area.

We observed that the number of hair samples collected from rub objects was highest in the first

sampling session, and continually decreased throughout the season. This is to be expected

12

relative to other studies that have shown that male grizzly bears rub more frequently than

females, and typically earlier in the year, during the breeding season (Lamb et al. 2017,

Morehouse and Boyce 2016, Sawaya et al. 2012). Other behavioral responses such as biting, and

clawing have also been documented to peak during spring and early summer among male

black bears (Burst and Pelton 1983).

Collecting hair from rub objects is a safe, non-invasive, and effective technique for gaining

valuable information on the density and abundance of grizzly bears. Though it has recently

become more common to determine abundance estimates by collecting hair samples from rub

trees (Sawaya et al. 2012, Stetz et al. 2010), the entire process is very time consuming and

expensive. In our case it involved 5 field crews with constant daily use of trucks and ATVs and

surveying for rub objects in the years prior to the actual hair collection survey was a significant

investment. If this approach is repeated in five or ten years, many of these same rub objects may

still be used and this will reduce the resources needed to repeat this survey.

There are many challenges associated with field projects of this scale and nature. Accessing

remote areas in mountainous terrain can be particularly challenging, especially when the

sampling window is time-sensitive with repeat visits scheduled well in advance. Periodic and

extreme rain events made backcountry travel challenging, along with occasional equipment

failures and rerouting crews to overcome trail washouts.

We encountered several equipment failures throughout the project related to trucks, ATVs,

utility trailers, and holiday trailers that were used as field camps. Responding to these

situations in a timely fashion was necessary to ensure field crews were back up and running to

continue collecting the time-sensitive data. Some of the more significant equipment issues we

had to deal with during the hair collection survey included a broken leaf spring (utility trailer),

a complete axle replacement (utility trailer), hail damage including damaged windshield

(truck), CV boot and coil spring replacements (ATVs), and several flat tires (utility trailer and

ATVs).

We also experienced several noteworthy weather events during the hair collection survey that

affected our ability to access routes and may have degraded hair quality for DNA analysis. For

example, heavy rain (> 40 mm) occurred in the Willow Creek drainage on July 17th, 2016 and (>

30 mm) in the Streeter Creek drainage on August 10th, 2016 (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry

2018), making some trails nearly impassable. Despite these specific weather events, we

13

continued to collect wet hair samples from rub objects recognizing that sample degradation can

occur when samples are exposed to prolonged moisture, wind, or sunlight (Kendall and

McKelvey 2008). To combat excessive moisture, we spread wet hair samples out to dry

overnight (pers. comm. Andrea Morehouse) prior to inserting them into paper coin envelopes

and then into Ziploc bags with silica gel dehumidifiers (Morehouse and Boyce 2016), although

hair degradation may have already occurred in some cases. Despite all efforts, our final genetic

analysis revealed a poor pre-screen success rate (54%) when compared with the prescreen

success rates for BMA 5 North in 2014 (76%), BMA 6 in 2012 (75%), and BMA 6 in 2013 (77%).

Though not for certain, these rain events could have impacted DNA extraction success.

Overall, this project contributed to a population inventory survey to update estimates of density

and abundance of grizzly bears in BMA 5. This project effort required rigorous training,

detailed survey protocols, experienced personnel, and well thought out field methods and

preparation. Having identified the locations of existing rub objects in the southern portion of

BMA 5 will certainly assist with future surveys if the same methodology is applied.

14

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2018. Alberta Climate Information Service (ACIS). Available

online at https://agriculture.alberta.ca/acis [Accessed 16 March 2018]

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017a. Alberta grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) recovery plan, 2017-

2022. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 38, produced by Alberta Environment

and Parks, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017b. BMA 5 Grizzly Monitoring. Available online at

(http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bear-

research/southwest-alberta-grizzly-monitoring/bma-5-grizzly-monitoring.aspx

[Accessed 12 March 2018]

Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team. 2007. Grizzly bear population and density estimates for

the 2006 Alberta Unit 5 Management Area Inventory. Report prepared for Alberta

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Available online at

(https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/2f768c90-4bad-457a-9d0f-

6523813194f1/resource/75f28dab-d91f-441b-81fa-4d1dcd6e80b6/download/2006-

GrizzlyBear-2006-DNAPopulationEst-2007.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2018]

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-

2013. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15, produced by Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 68 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2010. Status

of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010. Wildlife Status Report No. 37,

produced by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

44 pp.

Boulanger, J., K.C. Kendall, J.B. Stetz, D.A Roon, L.P. Waits, and D. Paetkau. 2008. Multiple data

sources improve DNA-based mark-recapture population estimates of grizzly bears.

Ecological Applications 18: 577-589.

15

Burst, T.L., and M.R. Pelton. 1983. Black bear mark trees in the Smoky Mountains. International

Conference on Bear Research and Management 5: 45-53.

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiv + 84

pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).

Graham, K., J. Boulanger, J. Duval, and G. Stenhouse. 2010. Spatial and temporal use of roads by

grizzly bears in west-central Alberta. Ursus 21: 43-56.

Green, I.G., and D.J. Mattson. 2003. Tree rubbing by Yellowstone grizzly bears Ursus arctos.

Wildlife Biology 9: 1-9.

Kendall, K.C., and K.S. McKelvey. 2008. Hair Collection. Pages 135-176. In: R.A. Long, P.

MacKay, W.J. Zielinski, and J.C. Ray. Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, D.A. Room, L.P. Waits, J.B. Boulanger, and D. Paetkau. 2008. Grizzly

bear density in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:

1693-1705.

Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A.C. Macleod, D. Paetkau, and G.C. White. 2009.

Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of

Wildlife Management 73: 3-17.

Ladle A., R. Steenweg, B. Shepherd, and M.S. Boyce. 2018. The role of human outdoor recreation

in shaping patterns of grizzly bear-black bear co-occurrence. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0191730.

Lamb, C.T., G. Mowat, S.L. Gilbert, B.N. McLellan, S.E. Nielsen, and S. Boutin. 2017. Density-dependent signaling: an alternative hypothesis on the function of chemical signaling in a non-territorial solitary carnivore. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0184176.

Morehouse A.T., and M.S. Boyce. 2016. Grizzly bears without borders: spatially explicit capture-

recapture in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 80: 1152-1166.

16

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852,

compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece, produced by the Government of

Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Northrup, J.M., G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2012. Agricultural lands as ecological traps for

grizzly bears. Animal Conservation 15: 369-377.

Sawaya, M.A., J.B. Stetz, A.P. Clevenger, M.L. Gibeau, and S.T. Kalinowski. 2012. Estimating

grizzly and black bear population abundance and trend in Banff National Park using

noninvasive genetic sampling. PLoS ONE 7: e34777.

Stetz, J.B., K.C. Kendall, and C. Servheen. 2010. Evaluation of bear rub surveys to monitor

grizzly bear population trends. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 860-870.

Stetz, J.B., K.C. Kendall, and A.C. Macleod. 2014. Black bear density in Glacier National Park,

Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38: 60-70.

Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for its generous support of this project: